To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

The Place of Jesus in My Teaching
Edward P. Blair
IAt a recent meeting of the Faculty Discussion Group papers were read by Professors
Blair, R. C. Smith, and Whitchurch. on the subject indicated above. The editor desires
to share these helpful discussions with TOWER readers.]
THE GARRETT
Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Illinois
MAY, 1943
VOL. XVIII, NO. 3
As I UNDERSTAND the subject under discussion
it is basically, what does Jesus mean to me?
and on what points of this personal faith do I place
emphasis in my teaching? I should like to express
three convictions about Jesus, each of which probably
comesup for its share of attention in my New Testa-ment
courses.
The first is: It is possible to know what Jesus
was like even though we cannot know exactly what
he did or said. The search for the historical Jesus
through the techniques of historical, literary, and
form criticism has led to considerable uncertainty
about the facts of Jesus' life. New Testament schol-ars
are no longer as sure as they once were of the
order of events in his ministry and the precise con-tent
of his teaching. They hesitate to use specific
sayings as an indication of his attitude on particular
social or religious problems, for they do not feel
altogether sure that these sayings came down
through the oral period and into our present docu-ments
in their original form, if indeed they came
from Jesus at all. While it appears to me that much
of this criticism is too radical and skeptical, it must
be admitted that certainty at many points is no
longer possible.
When negative conclusions of this sort are pre-sented
to students, it seems to me highly important
to point out what we can know, and know for sure,
about Jesus. Had we not a single word of his, or the
record of a single act, we would still know in a gen-eral
way, at least, what he was like, for we do have
the Christian church, and we have a fairly clear
idea of the world into which Christianity was born.
To illustrate, let us consider one characteristic of
early Christianity. Whence came the strange passion
in the lives of the early Christians for the down-trodden,
the outcasts, the unfortunate, the moral and
ceremonially unclean, the unlovely, and the unlov-
.·tL TOWER
able? Whence came the emphasis in the teaching of
Paul on the primacy of love, that divine love that
expresses itself in love of one's fellows? Whence
came the spirit of brotherhood which characterized
the fellowship from its earliest beginnings? It seems
inescapable that the early church's love for human
beings of whatever condition or kind originated with
the church's Lord. This attitude was not to be found,
at least to the same extent, in the Judaism of the
day. Montefiore, the great Jewish scholar, remarks
on Jesus' association with publicans and sinners as
follows: "He did not avoid sinners, but sought them
out. They were still children of God. This was a
new and sublime contribution to the development of
religion and morality ... to deny the greatness and
originality of Jesus in this connection, to deny that
he opened a new chapter in men's attitude towards
sin and sinners, is, I think, to beat the head against
a wall" (Synoptic GospeLs, I, p. 55). But had we no
stories about Jesus and no record of his sayings, a
knowledge of the early church and the Judaism out
of which it came would force us to conclude that
behind the new movement lay a personality of pecu-liar
richness, tenderness, and power, who raised up
spiritual children like unto himself. There is much
we can know for sure about Jesus, even if we should
allow the more extreme form critics to have their
way.
The second conviction is: While we can know
quite certainly what Jesus was like, we shall never
completely understand the mystery of his person
and the precise character of his redemptive work.
All of the attempts of history to explain him by the
use of contemporary symbols and thought forms
have been more or less inadequate, and the same
will doubtless be true of future attempts. A recogni-tion
of this fact need not, however, blind us to the
reality existing behind the symbols and expressed
in the thought forms.

The items digitized in this collection are the property of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. This image may be used freely, with attribution, for research and educational purposes. For permission to publish, distribute, or use this image for any other purpose, please contact The Styberg Library by phone (847)866-3909 or email styberg.library@garrett.edu

The Place of Jesus in My Teaching
Edward P. Blair
IAt a recent meeting of the Faculty Discussion Group papers were read by Professors
Blair, R. C. Smith, and Whitchurch. on the subject indicated above. The editor desires
to share these helpful discussions with TOWER readers.]
THE GARRETT
Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Illinois
MAY, 1943
VOL. XVIII, NO. 3
As I UNDERSTAND the subject under discussion
it is basically, what does Jesus mean to me?
and on what points of this personal faith do I place
emphasis in my teaching? I should like to express
three convictions about Jesus, each of which probably
comesup for its share of attention in my New Testa-ment
courses.
The first is: It is possible to know what Jesus
was like even though we cannot know exactly what
he did or said. The search for the historical Jesus
through the techniques of historical, literary, and
form criticism has led to considerable uncertainty
about the facts of Jesus' life. New Testament schol-ars
are no longer as sure as they once were of the
order of events in his ministry and the precise con-tent
of his teaching. They hesitate to use specific
sayings as an indication of his attitude on particular
social or religious problems, for they do not feel
altogether sure that these sayings came down
through the oral period and into our present docu-ments
in their original form, if indeed they came
from Jesus at all. While it appears to me that much
of this criticism is too radical and skeptical, it must
be admitted that certainty at many points is no
longer possible.
When negative conclusions of this sort are pre-sented
to students, it seems to me highly important
to point out what we can know, and know for sure,
about Jesus. Had we not a single word of his, or the
record of a single act, we would still know in a gen-eral
way, at least, what he was like, for we do have
the Christian church, and we have a fairly clear
idea of the world into which Christianity was born.
To illustrate, let us consider one characteristic of
early Christianity. Whence came the strange passion
in the lives of the early Christians for the down-trodden,
the outcasts, the unfortunate, the moral and
ceremonially unclean, the unlovely, and the unlov-
.·tL TOWER
able? Whence came the emphasis in the teaching of
Paul on the primacy of love, that divine love that
expresses itself in love of one's fellows? Whence
came the spirit of brotherhood which characterized
the fellowship from its earliest beginnings? It seems
inescapable that the early church's love for human
beings of whatever condition or kind originated with
the church's Lord. This attitude was not to be found,
at least to the same extent, in the Judaism of the
day. Montefiore, the great Jewish scholar, remarks
on Jesus' association with publicans and sinners as
follows: "He did not avoid sinners, but sought them
out. They were still children of God. This was a
new and sublime contribution to the development of
religion and morality ... to deny the greatness and
originality of Jesus in this connection, to deny that
he opened a new chapter in men's attitude towards
sin and sinners, is, I think, to beat the head against
a wall" (Synoptic GospeLs, I, p. 55). But had we no
stories about Jesus and no record of his sayings, a
knowledge of the early church and the Judaism out
of which it came would force us to conclude that
behind the new movement lay a personality of pecu-liar
richness, tenderness, and power, who raised up
spiritual children like unto himself. There is much
we can know for sure about Jesus, even if we should
allow the more extreme form critics to have their
way.
The second conviction is: While we can know
quite certainly what Jesus was like, we shall never
completely understand the mystery of his person
and the precise character of his redemptive work.
All of the attempts of history to explain him by the
use of contemporary symbols and thought forms
have been more or less inadequate, and the same
will doubtless be true of future attempts. A recogni-tion
of this fact need not, however, blind us to the
reality existing behind the symbols and expressed
in the thought forms.